LTTeisinės literatūros, tarptautinių aktų analizė leidžia teigti, jog įtariamojo teisė būti informuotam, kuri suprantama, kaip įtariamojo teisė aiškiais žodžiais ir nedviprasmiškai būti informuotam apie socialinius ir procesinius jo padėties pokyčius, išaiškinus dabartinės padėties specifiką – teisės į gynybą pagrindas. Apskritai žinojimas apie tam tikro fakto buvimą bet kuriam baudžiamojo proceso dalyviui leidžia pasirinkti atitinkamą poziciją ar taktiką. Įtariamojo žinojimas apie procesinio įstatymo jam suteiktas teises, iškilusį įtarimą, jo pagrindus bei motyvus yra logiškai grindžiama teisė, nulemta pačios gynybos esmės. Gintis galima tik tuomet, jei žinai grėsmės šaltinį, pavyzdžiui, įtarimą ar kaltinimą, bei tiksliai įvertini savo procesines galimybes. Tad šiame straipsnyje pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas nagrinėti vieną iš įtariamojo teisės į gynybą procesinio turinio elementų – teisei būti informuotam. Remiantis minėtos įtariamojo teisės samprata tiek Lietuvos, tiek tarptautinėje teisėje, atlikto empirinio tyrimo pagrindu identifikuojamos pagrindinės teorinio ir praktinio teisės būti informuotam įgyvendinimo problemos, siūlomi galimi sprendimo būdai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamasis procesas; Ikiteisminis tyrimas; Teisė būti informuotam; Teisė į gynybą; Įtariamasis (kaltinamasis); Criminal procedure; Pretrial investigtion; Right to be informed; Suspect (accused); The right to defence.
ENThe right to be informed is understood as a right of a suspect to be informed in a simple, non-technical language that he can understand, about social and procedural changes of his position in the criminal procedure. The analysis of the scholarly writings entitles to conclude that the right to be informed is the foundation of the right to defense. In general, knowledge of particular facts entitles any participant of the criminal procedure to choose his position or tactics. The function of the defense determines the necessity of the suspect to know about any charges against him and his rights in the criminal procedure. It is only possible to defend oneself if the source of danger is known. The author of the present article seeks to analyze the structure of the right to be informed. The concept of the right to be informed is not studied in this article. The author considers that the right to be informed is understood as a combination of a right to know the essence of the suspicion, the right to know the grounds and motives of arrest and of the right to maintain a relationship with the outside world. The methods and purposes of investigation have been determined by the nature of the problems. The author has identified some problems of the practical implementation of the right to be informed on the basis of a survey, which was conducted by mail. The article discusses the results of the survey. The five groups of respondents which participated in the survey were the officers of the pretrial investigation, prosecutors, judges, solicitors and victims. There were two questionnaires, one of which was filled by the officers of pre-trial investigation, prosecutors, judges and advocates, another was filled by those accused of criminal conduct.The questionnaires were sent and the replies were obtained from 464 respondents (300 filled in questionnaires were received from the accused; 50 - from the investigators, 30 - from the solicitors, 48 – from the prosecutors and 33 – from the judges). The main purpose of the investigation was to determine the theoretical and practical perception of the suspected person's right to defense, the legal regulation and its relation with the actual practical realization of the right to defense in the course of the pretrial investigation. The majority of the surveyed accused were the people with several previous convictions regardless of the level of danger of the effected criminal deed; the majority of the law enforcement officers were the people possessing not less than three years of the legal service in these institutions. [From the publication]